Blunty Biblical

Over recent months, the Lord has put the question of Hell and its eternity on my mind. I was raised with very universalist ideas, such that Hell does not even exist in any ontological sense, but I confess I never really delved into the question after becoming a Christian of a more 'Biblical' type. Added to the prompting of the Holy Spirit, people had urged me read That All Shall Be Saved by David Bentley Hart (DBH). As DBH clearly stated in his book, he would pull no punches. Allow me to also be rather bald about what I found. I came out of the book thinking DBH was way off mark.

The first and most basic difference between myself and Hart are our divergent views on Biblical interpretation. As an absolute foundation to my own Biblical interpretation, the very first thing I consider is the interpretation of one verse in the context with other verses in the Biblical text, across both first and second testaments. For me, this is an utterly vital point based on the concept the Bible is God-breathed through those humans who wrote their particular texts. DBH is absolutely explicit when he says he does not accept the divine inspiration of the Biblical text and requires no internal consistency. By disavowing the need for any internal consistency, something I criticised in False Duality, DBH side steps any part of the Bible that disagrees with his pre-assumed positions. This one statement of the author torpedoed any credibility he would have had in my mind.

David Bentley Hart quoted a whole tonne of scriptural references, much with the Koine Greek, which he said “appeared” to suggest an eternal Hell. He rather quaintly dismisses them as “hyperbole”, apparently quite ignorant of the fact that the exact same could be said of his treasured “universalist” verses. This is especially so, given that we can throw out the need for internal consistency, according to DBH. Furthermore, DBH asks why Paul was not clearer about any limits to these so-called universalist verses which the apostle wrote. Again, the same question could be leveled at Jesus Himself. If the apparent eternity of worms and fire were mere psychological states, why didn't He express that more explicitly? The simple reason: Jesus never meant it to be taken that way. And, in the context of the full canon of Scripture, neither did Paul.

The strongest point that Hart rose for me was the need to have a better grip on Paul's writings which Hart uses to argue for universalism. I really need to delve into them a little more deeply, but not with a view to change my opinions of Hart's woefully crappy theology. Rather, I need to deepen my understanding of Paul's writings, in the light of the rest of Scripture. A second thing I owe to David Bentley Hart is a desire and need to read more of the early church theologians. I have a pretty bad knowledge of them, but I know enough to not buy into Hart's intimations that universalism was anything but a fringe theological position (at the moment). Even that last comment proving wrong, the Bible is the one, final and total arbiter of truth.

I was probably the easiest mark Hart had, having grown up with a hard universalism as taught and expressed through the First Church of Christ, Scientist (based in Boston). Many of Hart's ideas are directly out of their play book. Hart was not convincing. For those who do not believe in universalism but are looking for a comprehensive, well-resourced argument for universalism as a theological position, That All Shall Be Saved is not it. It is a great book for universalists seeking confirmation of their views, but the book is nothing more than a personal reflection.

In what might seem a minor objection, I personally found the complete lack of footnotes or endnotes telling. I agree with one of my early theology lecturers in that a good academic book is “written in the footnotes.” The complete and total lack of them in That All Shall Be Saved tells me more about Hart's attitudes to his readership. He clearly aims his book at current universalists seeking a reaffirmation for their position rather than engaging with anyone outside that theological tradition. To Hart's credit, he is fairly honest about that point from the beginning.

At the end of the day, I thank Hart for the identity. I remain an infernalist.